Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 30, 2013 9:30pm-10:00pm PDT

9:30 pm
near term projects the city could do on market street before the while this project is going through environmental and implementation phase. so i can present what those projects are? >> okay. some of my colleagues had questions about that and perhaps they have been consulted. my office has been as well. if colleagues would like to hear that presentation we can request it. i'm not saying that anyone is calling for it. we can go to public comment. thank you for being here. >> commissioner chiu. >> i appreciate the work that staff has done on the slate of some of the near term projects that have been laid out as i expressed to you in our meeting the other day. i wonder, have you been able to present this to stake holders who care about market street. have you sat down with pedestrian,
9:31 pm
advocates, cycling advocates because i know what we have in documents so far. >> that request is with the team and in the planning and some we'll be able to work on and the other ones we'll go to explaining and why those are not feasible. we might not be able to implement that. >> when can we have a discussion about those near term projects after you had a chance to sit down with stake holders. >> it can happen within the next 18 months. there are some
9:32 pm
concerns of funding of some of those projects. we can do that in the next week or so. >> when would be the next official check in here at the market street project. this is also in part of question to colleagues, i know there have been a number of hearings scheduled on market street and wonder if there is a next natural check in to talk about this? >> we have a last full ta meeting, we had a presentation but it was cut short by bumping into our meeting. wiener has had a discussion on market street. >> i called a hearing but want to make sure the hearing is meaningful so it's not a repeat. so probably more like in may or late april or may we do that just to make sure that there is some progress that's been made. >> commissioner chiu.
9:33 pm
>> let me sit down and get a briefing of where that conversation led up in part because the finance committee has been asking for the last two years to make additional incremental expenditures for a variety of many consultants that we have on this project and there has been a sense of not seeing the progress we have wanted to see specifically around some of these near term projects. i'm okay with moving out this item today but would very much like perhaps in an about three weeks to get a summary of those conversations with those stake holders and understanding of why certain things were included and why certain things weren't which may require another conversation depending on that final list but certainly look forward to further conversations about that and plan to sit with wiener to talk
9:34 pm
about the next steps on this program. >> okay. thank you, commissioner chiu. commissioner campos? >> thank you mr. chair and mr. newark for your presentation. what i have is to make sure whatever happens is that there is as much community input what we do on market and mission street on some ideas that have been put around for mission street. i feel unfortunately they have not included enough input from the residents and folks who will be impacted by what's being proposed. so i look to being part of this discussion. it's not just relevant on what happens on mission street on this part of down and district 6 area but it also impacts what happens with district 9, 11, other districts. i do have a
9:35 pm
question, though, there has been talks in the past about having rapid transit on mission street and i'm wondering how that fits into what is being proposed, being talked about for market street and mission street here? >> i think i would ask the mta to respond to that. >> andrew lee, transit planner. right now the mission street is not one of or corridor but it will affect the streets as well as the outside better market street study area and we are coordinating our efforts to tell the public exactly what will happen because if the mission street
9:36 pm
concept for better market street goes in, it will preclude the improvements. >> okay. i don't think we should not consider it down the road. i think going down this path could conclude that if we decided that was an option. thank you. >> okay. thank you very much. we can open this item up for comment. any public wish to come forward? >> commissioners, i'm the market street design advisory review committee. i think that this is something like the difference between tactics and strategy. the tactics here are the near term and short-term five year which is absolutely essential. they show that
9:37 pm
something is happening and i improve market street for the city. i ask you not to forget the strategy that sometimes is lost in the federal government and that is in the 2040 concept. dpw and the planning department do have to get together along with mta and consider what's going to happen on market street in the long-term. in the strategy situation aiming for 2040. so as much as what we do now is absolutely necessary, it helps the city, it helps the citizens and helps the economy along market street. we have to keep the 2040 or further in mind all
9:38 pm
along. so that type of planning and funds and personnel for that planning has to be kept in mind. thank you. thank you, commissioner miguel? >> next speaker please. >> good morning, commissioners, my name is tom for the coalition. greater part to all of us by coalition. i just want to clarify that we have not yet received feedback from the city on our ideas for near term and pilot i am improvements, although we do expect that we'll be hearing from that project team shortly. so we will definitely keep you in touch in terms of our thoughts and reflexes -- reflections on those ideas and keep you informed. thank you. >> thank you very much, any other public member would like
9:39 pm
to comment? seeing none, we'll close for comment. you'll can >> can we take this item? >> one of our colleagues had requested a summary of all of the different expenditures for all the different consultants on this project. could i ask where that summary is? i haven't seen it come across my desk. >> so we did bring a summary of all the work that all the consultants have been do you think and i also believe -- >> do you have a document that you could give to us? >> the blue >> got it. thank you. >> that table has all the descriptions and various task
9:40 pm
as what the deliverables are and we are about 85 percent complete with the consultant work. >> do you ever breakout by the consultant themselves. i know there were a dozen consultants that you were working on this. >> we can get that to you. >> if i understand things correctly, i think we understood in committee that what you were asking for was an in in the total budget and subsequent to that it's actually shifting money around in the budget? >> yes. we are shifting money to provide more money #20 so they can finish that project. >> if you can get that to me, that would be helpful. >> thank you. >> okay. we may have a new house. we'll do roll call.
9:41 pm
>> commissioner avalos, breed, campos, chiu, cohen, ferrel, kim, absent, tang, wiener, yee, item passes. >> next item, please. >> item no. 7, authorize the executive director for construction services in the right of way certification for the cal department of transportation the united states code license agreement and all the circumstances related documents for federal and safe funds for the improvements project. >> public comments? now open on this item. seeing none, we'll close for public comment. colleagues can take the house. item passes. >> next item, please.
9:42 pm
>> the county transportation item. >> from the programs committee. commissioner yee? >> thank you. unfortunately i missed the last meeting otherwise i would have this question then. i noticed that there is a candle stikck cost for $90 million in terms of the timeframe they are considering that things in that area would change drastically. i notice the timeframe for this is 2020, but i question whether or not 2020 we would have enough information to actually start planning what to do with
9:43 pm
those exit orders. i need more information in terms of whether or not these things are being considered in terms of not having a candlestick there. >> okay. mta staff? >> good morning. deputy for planning and on behalf of the project manager who is ill. let me answer that question. it's listed as a 2020 project and this relates to the bay view water front project which is happening in the 2020 timeframe. our analysis shows to prior to that point it's not absolutely critical to have that change rebuilt. it does take a long time to get those projects under way and an approved and funded and it's work now between now and 2020.
9:44 pm
>> i guess i was going on the opposite end whether some of the build out would be slower? >> that could well be. we've seen it happen with mission bay and commission cycles. going forward it's hard to say. that would be the earliest in our opinion, although we know that some folks on the other line are akin to have that built. the interest changes are important for the bay land. 2020 might be the earliest and possibly even later as you suggest. >> thank you. >> okay. if there are no other comments or questions, we can go public comment. >> excuse me, chair. may i indicate the letter on your desk is with a recommendation but the staff was coordinated
9:45 pm
with the staff to address the impact. their letter does suggest that they agree the project list is reasonable and the technical background for the cost participation framework is reasonable and they wish to still be involved in on going discussions regarding the potential cost framework methodology which we agree is an on going even after the study. >> thank you. any public member would like to comment, come forward. seeing none, we close for comment. the item passes. >> next item, please. >> work conditions to the department of public works. appropriate $200,000 for funds request and san francisco state university for one request and
9:46 pm
-- schedules and the prop k pedestrian participation program. this is an action item. >> thank you, comments or questions? let's go to public comments? commissioner yee? >> i have a question on one of the allocations, the 146,000 for san francisco state university to basically come up with a plan to improve the pedestrian walkway and so forth. the question here is because this is a project of san francisco state that's building a wellness center and they need to -- they realize there is going to be more traffic caused by that. so maybe it's a clarification here where a lot of times i keep on hearing when san francisco state has projects, we have no
9:47 pm
jurisdiction over it, and now, they are building a building that would impact the street and i'm wondering, this is just the planning phase of it, but in terms of the implementation of it, they build on and so forth who is paying for that? is it assumed that city will be paying for this when a lot of times when they have their projects, we have no control over it. so, clarification? >> can we direct that question to ta staff? the question is on for future build out, who would cover the cost of that? >> absolutely. the funding plans for the overall project has about $1.1 million in prop
9:48 pm
fees in part of the strategic plan in $140,000 in sfu funds. the total cost is under $2 million. >> so it's partially paid by whatever grants they get. i guess. >> thank you, this item is up for public comments. seeing none, we'll close for public comment. can we take the same house call? item passes. >> next item, please. >> prop case strategic plan update and schedule, this is an action item. >> comments or questions from colleagues? public comment? we'll close public comment. colleagues, same house, same call? item passes. >> next item, please. >> no items. this is an
9:49 pm
information item. >> any new items to introduce? okay. public comment? we'll close all public comment. and our next item? >> item 12, public comment. >> i'm holding my breath for general public comment. we'll close public comment. >> and our next item? >> adjournment. >> we are adjourned. thank you. >> >>
9:50 pm
9:51 pm
>> good morning. today is wednesday, march 20th, 2013. this is the meeting of the abatement appeals board. i would like to remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. president clinch? >> here. >> commissioner lee? >> here. >> commissioner mar? >> here. >> commissioner mccray? >> present. >> commissioner walker? >> present. >> and commissioner mccarthy and melgar are excused. ~ and we have a quorum. the next item is item b, the oath. will all persons that may be giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand? do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? >> yes. >> thank you. you may be seated. item c, approval of minutes,
9:52 pm
discussion and possible action to adopt the minutes for the meeting held on november 21st, 2012. there is a motion to approve the minutes. >> move to approve. >> second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> any opposed? is there any public comment on the minutes? the minutes are approved. the next items are continued appeals for order of abatement. the cases, case no. case no. 6773, 1316 - 22 mariposa street has been continued and the continuance has been granted for 30 days. is there any public comment?
9:53 pm
>> can we hear from staff? >> i'm sorry? >> can we hear from staff? >> let's take one at a time. let's do the continued appeal, 67 73, what happened -- >> well, they -- well, go ahead. >> i received correspondence from the -- from richard thomas requesting an additional 30 days due to illness and the fact that his lawyer was out of town. speaking with the city attorney, and sonya, and i did call president clinch yesterday to ask his permission if he agreed with the department staff. he, according to the city attorney, president clinch and myself, we decide it had was best if we gave mr. thomas an additional 30 days due to the codes.
9:54 pm
>> i understand that last month the appellant asked for a continuance and submitted a letter saying that he was not available or his engineer was on vacation or something like that. so, did he submit a letter this time? >> yes, we have an additional letter from mr. thomas requesting it. >> it was in the packet -- >> was it in our package? i thought that was the one for last month. >> no, there's two letters in there. there is one in the beginning. >> i have a question. i would like to know what the building code allows around continuances. >> the building code allows one continuance for 60 days. i gave him one continuance for 30 days. but there's other things other than the building code, there's past practices. >> yes, did you want to answer the -- >> i just have a question on procedure. i'm a bit confused here. who is granting the continuance, you or the staff? >> right, we are being asked to
9:55 pm
continue this. it's on our agenda. >> thank you. >> actually, the way it transpired was the appellant requested continuances of all three matters that are on the agenda. and according to the rule 7.10 that we had discussed earlier, the -- not the building code, but the rules that apply to the building appeals board, is my understanding, it says that if the secretary -- if there's no objection from the department and the secretary has the approval of the president, the secretary of the board can continue the matters. my understanding is that the secretary contacted the president yesterday and he agreed. and according to mr. sweeney, there was no objection from the department. so, according to the rules, the continuance can be granted. and we discussed the fact that the building code section 105 a.2 says that there should be
9:56 pm
one continuance for 60 days, but in light of the stated reasons, the fact that the first continuance was for 30 days and there being some ambiguity based on the fact that people are -- have routinely been granted more than one continuance, it would be best -- it was my advice consistent with the rules and the practices of this board that the continuance could be granted if the secretary and the president agreed and there was no objection from the department. that was my advice. i didn't advise whether or not to grant it, just the rules as i understood them. >> right, i had not experienced that once it's on the agenda and we get it, usually it's the decision of the commission to do it. i mean, i just -- i mean, i think that we need to -- my concern is this is languaged on forever that the first letter
9:57 pm
was basically one set of excuses. the next letter is another set of excuses. and i would like to draw a line as to when we resolve this case. so, i mean, i would like input from the commissioners on -- >> well, i think since -- i would like to draw the line, it too, so to speak. but since the discussion here sounds like we authorized one continuance for 60 days, and we gave one continuance for 30 days so we can actually grant another 30 days and that's it. can we do that? >> like i said, there was -- there is some ambiguity because the rules that apply to the ab, which is the rule 7.10 says if there is a written request to the secretary and the secretary has the approval of the president and there's no objection from the department, then the continuance can be granted by the secretary. if the department objects, then the rule 7.10 says that then the appellant has to come
9:58 pm
before the board and request the continuance. so, again, i'm not advising whether or not it should have been granted, but i was just explaining -- okay. >> okay. so, since it was granted, let's say -- >> yes. >> -- is it for 30 days and that's it, right? not 60 days, it was 30 days from now. >> that was my understanding, mr. sweeney notified the appel -- appellant that he was granted a 30-day continuance. >> yeah, i think this has been languaged in, too. the other problem with this hearing is that there's more than one issue. there were four issues, i think, that was going to be coming before this commission. so, what i would like to do is just to let the appellant know that we're going to hear it in 30 days. so, if somebody is sick, if somebody is not available, he should find somebody else to represent him. but for whatever reason, we're going to hear it, all these
9:59 pm
four cases, in 30 days whether he's here or not, or whether any of his representatives are here or not. so, he better get it together and have somebody here. that's what i would like to do. >> >> could i also say i'm concerned that if we notice that something is on the calendar, if there is any public that's here in response to it, you know, that's one of the reasons why we shouldn't just take it off the agenda prior to the hearing because i want to make sure that we're in compliance with our brown act and, you know, all of the notifications that we do. so, i mean, my preference when we're talking about the rules in the future is that we address that, that if it's noticed to the public, that there might be a different handling of the appeal or a continuance. and if the continuance is requested before the actual noticing goes out, just -- >>


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on